BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1139
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 10, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION
Wally Knox, Chair
AB 1139 (Strom-Martin) - As Amended: January 3, 2000
Majority vote. Fiscal committee.
SUBJECT : Personal Income Tax Checkoff: Animal Population
Control Fund
SUMMARY : Authorizes the addition of a new personal income tax
checkoff to fund an animal population control program that will
be administered by the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA).
Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows the Animal Population Control Fund checkoff to remain
on the tax form for five years after it is added to the tax
form, provided it receives a minimum level of contributions
(equal to $250,000 in its first year on the form and increased
for inflation in subsequent years).
2)Authorizes money contributed to the Animal Population Control
Fund to be used to reimburse the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) and
Controller for administering the checkoff and to fund an
animal population control program that will be administered by
DFA.
3)Requires the Animal Population Control Fund checkoff to wait
until another checkoff comes off the income tax form before it
is allowed to be added to the form. However, if the animal
population control checkoff has not been added to the income
tax form by the 2002 tax year, the bill also requires the
checkoff to be placed on the form beginning in the 2003 tax
year (i.e., returns due in April, 2004).
EXISTING LAW allows taxpayers to contribute money to one or more
of thirteen voluntary contribution funds by checking a box on
their state income tax return. California law requires
contributions made through checkoffs to be made from taxpayers'
own resources (not from their tax liability, as is possible on
federal tax returns). Checkoff amounts may be claimed as
charitable contributions on taxpayers' tax returns during the
subsequent year.
AB 1139
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : An estimate of the cost of this bill is not yet
available from the FTB. However, on the basis of FTB analyses
of other income tax checkoff bills, Committee staff estimate
that the cost will result in revenue losses in the range of
$15,000 annually beginning in the fiscal year after the checkoff
first appears on the tax form.
COMMENTS :
1)This bill is intended to help fund a program that will allow
low-income pet owners to spay and neuter their pets. Although
the bill currently directs checkoff contributions to DFA, DFA
does not currently administer a program similar to the one
that the author wishes to be funded with the checkoff
contributions. According to the author's office, the bill
will likely be amended to redirect funds to a nonprofit that
they expect to be established at some time in the future.
2)Reduced-cost spay and neuter services are currently available
to low-income individuals through various humane societies,
local government agencies, and veterinarians. However, these
services are typically provided on a
jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. At present, there is no
state department or agency, private statewide organization, or
coordinated group of local agencies that runs a program to
help low-income individuals spay and neuter their pets.
Because no organization exists to receive and distribute the
funds contributed through the checkoff provided by this bill,
the bill may be premature.
3)This bill includes a sunset date and a $250,000 minimum
contribution requirement, two provisions the Legislature has
been requesting of any checkoff being considered for inclusion
on the tax return.
4)The bill also includes a requirement that another checkoff
come off the income tax form before this one can go on. This
provision of the bill is similar to one included in SB 493
(Figueroa), Chapter 398, Statutes of 1999. Requiring
checkoffs to wait in line before being placed on the tax form
is intended to address concerns that the tax form is very
close to exceeding its current two-page length. Going to a
three-page form would be extremely costly for the state
because of increased printing and processing costs.
AB 1139
Page 3
FTB staff indicate that if more than one checkoff is waiting in
line to go on the form, they would likely use chaptering order
to determine the order in which the checkoffs would be added.
5)Unfortunately, there is no alternative that is clearly
preferable to queuing if we wish to retain a two-page form.
The 1999 tax form already double-stacks the checkoffs and uses
a smaller font in order to save space. One alternative that
would eliminate the need for queuing involves restructuring
the income tax forms by removing checkoffs from the 540-series
forms and placing them all on a separate schedule. Any
taxpayer wishing to contribute money to one of the checkoff
funds could then fill out and attach the additional schedule
to his or her return, in much the same way as that taxpayer
might complete Schedules CA or D and attach them to his or her
return. However, removing the checkoffs from the form and
adding them to a separate schedule would reduce their
visibility and decrease the likelihood that taxpayers would
choose to contribute. It would also increase printing costs.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
The Fund for Animals
Doris Day Animal League
AB 1139
Page 4
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Eileen A. Roush / REV. & TAX. / (916)
319-2098